Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

crimeandpunishment writes "A scientific expedition to the Titanic will create a detailed three-dimensional map of the world's most famous shipwreck. A 'dream team' of archaeologists, oceanographers, and other scientists will spend 20 days assessing the legendary ship's deteriorating condition, and collecting data and images. They're calling it the most advanced scientific mission to Titanic since its discovery 25 years ago. A leader of the expedition says this is the first time the wreck will be treated as an archaeological site, with two goals: 'One is to preserve the legacy of the ship by enhancing the story of the Titanic itself. The second part is to really understand what the state of the ship is.'"

One is to preserve the legacy of the ship by enhancing the story of the Titanic itself.

And by this part, I suppose they mean to "preserve the legacy of the ship by enhancing the story of a ridiculous show of hubris and excess built on the backs or hundreds of poor workers by a Victorian aristocracy that was as far removed from reality as is possible before a society starts to break down."

That's not saying that folks in the present day couldn't learn a thing or two from the story of the titanic, but I doubt the right folks will be paying attention.

Hmm...putting a huge but shoddily built seagoing vessel with insufficient safeguards in a place where its sinking could kill people and traumatize a nation after being accidentally subjected to sudden pressure coming from a great and frigid depth...who could bp so foolish as to repeat this mistake in this modern age?

Oh, but isn't it wonderful that we are so rich that we can spend big money on the really important things, like digging through the dumpster we laughingly refer to as "the Atlantic Ocean" for historical tidbits? Yes, as a society our priorities are clearly in proper order... Screw our natural resources, this Titanic thingie will sell advertising!
And after all is said and done, isn't that what life's all about?

I don't think this is a fair characterisation of what was going on in the passenger ship business at the time. These ships were profitable, and a large part of the money came from 2nd and 3rd class accommodation (which was, incidentally, better on the Titanic than most other ships of the day). It was also a relatively safe ship, the hole that sank the Titanic would sink just about any ship.

These ships weren't 'ridiculous show[s] of hubris' any more than a fleet of 747s are. They were profitable and efficient ways of moving a lot of people around. Several companies were building ships the same size or bigger when the Titanic set off on it's maiden voyage, because it was seen as the most efficient way to run a passenger service.

The problem was that it wasn't carrying enough life boats. This was a regulatory problem (although you could argue that this shouldn't need regulation, it was just common sense!).

I don't think there are a lot of things to be learned from the Titanic: it was one fluke event. To learn the right lessons we need a bigger sample, more data. If we base our decisions on impressive single events, we're going to be make some silly decisions.

The problem was that it wasn't carrying enough life boats. This was a regulatory problem (although you could argue that this shouldn't need regulation, it was just common sense!).

If you have read any of the accounts of the Titanic sinking it isn't like there were 1500 people standing around wondering what to do now that the lifeboats were gone. It is a lot closer to the truth that they loaded the lifeboats and the ship sank under them as the last boats were loaded. The ran out of time trying to get the collapsable lifeboats launched and never made use of one of them. This would have been the same story if they had a lot more lifeboats.

I disagree that they didn't have time. The Lusitania got a similar number off in 18 minutes(!), which suggests that there wasn't enough of a sense of urgency in unloading the Titanic. Perhaps because it seemed pointless in any case.

Last time I crossed the Atlantic by ocean liner, they had a thing called "life boat drill". Basically practice for if the ship sank, and people showed up at their life boat stations pretty quick.One of the problems with the Titanic was people had not practiced as it was considered unsinkable and even when it was sinking people still didn't believe it and preferred to stay on the ship rather then get in life boats.

And on the first goal of "...preserve the legacy of the ship by enhancing the story of the Titanic itself..." It's been done. A lot. The last damn movie was in the theaters for over a year, I think the "legacy" has been "embraced" and even had a terrible theme song sung by that canadian harpy. Let's, you know, move on to other shipwrecks if that's our thing... without a song by Celine Dion this time, please.

It's a pop icon, like Disney World or the Eiffel Tower. It will persist forever in a tomb of copyright and exploitation to titillate the masses and enrich the powerful. So, I'm pretty much OK with that.

Just like we don't need to study the pyramids to figure out what civilization was like in ancient Egypt, but I'd still consider that civilization as lost in this context. I'd consider the terms almost synonymous when dealing with great historic monuments. And a Disaster site is just as monumental as a structure, just see Pompei

Just like we don't need to study the pyramids to figure out what civilization was like in ancient Egypt, but I'd still consider that civilization as lost in this context. I'd consider the terms almost synonymous when dealing with great historic monuments. And a Disaster site is just as monumental as a structure, just see Pompei

Egypt? Pompei? I think you are getting yourself a tad worked up here. We are talking about a ship that sank less than 100 years ago at this point. What great archaeological finds do you suppose have yet to be discovered?

Preservation of artifacts today is as big a deal as discovering them in the first place. It wouldn't do us a heck of a lot of good if we went and bulldozed all of our historical culture to set up a new strip mall or waterpark. Keeping this stuff around is no easy task.

The Titanic is no different, it is an antiquity of a very rare nature: It's not just an ocean liner, it's THE ocean liner from the 1900's that every one knows and remembers, it's story makes it a celebrity.

Who says they aren't? But that will come in another press announcement that will also include the information that the sequel is going to be produced by Michael Bay. Only this time, instead of an ice berg sinking the Titanic, it will be an experimental submarine with tactical nuke torpedoes! And instead of Leo Di Caprio falling in love, we will be treated to a lead role as performed by Bruce Willis! And instead of falling in love with a rich girl, he will uncover a secret plot where the captain plans to steal the ship and turn it over to the Russians to cement their naval dominance of the Black Sea. Of course, Bruce will only be able to challenge the captain, as played by Kevin Spacey, with the aid of his lithe but sassy sidekick Lucy Liu! The whole thing will be so epic that the only way Bruce and Lucy can escape is on the back of sharks with friggin' laser beams attached to their foreheads. Avatar look out! Titanic in 3-D is making a run at your box office records!

Oh, thank God. From the title I thought Hollywood was re-releasing Titanic in 3-D. Although the guy hitting the propeller would be pretty cool in 3-D.

Well, you're in luck because James Cameron has a Spring 2012 [usatoday.com] target to have a 3D remastered version of the movie in theatres. Not only will you get to watch your "will he blend" propeller scene in glorious multi-dimensional detail, you'll also get to experience Kate Winslet's 30' tall boobs nestled in your lap.

Oh, thank God. From the title I thought Hollywood was re-releasing Titanic in 3-D. Although the guy hitting the propeller would be pretty cool in 3-D.

It will probably happen. One of my ex's is a producer on an IMAX 3D movie (made for IMAX, not a re-purposed hollywood movie) and she's rubbed shoulders with Cameron and his wife. Last year she went to a pre-screening of Avatar at his private theater and Cameron also showed about 5 minutes of footage from Titanic in 3D and said re-releasing it in 3D is one of the things he would really like to do.

With great curiosity I click on the hilited link "three-dimensional map of the world's most famous shipwreck" (which is irresistible you know) and find a nearly-slashdotted site that actually hasn't that model yet.

After reading the title, for one horrible moment I thought that James Cameron was going to drag the 13 year old film from its grave and milk it for yet more money by pointlessly converting it into 3-D for a new cinematic release in 2012.
Thank goodness that's not happening.

Hasn't he already said that a remake of it in 3d is on his list? He is trying to generate a 3d bandwagon after-all, so dredging up some of his past ballbaggery movies and milking more money from them would seem like a two birds one stone situation.

1. sony and panasonic set to work debuting 3d video and television technology.

2. lets be realistic: sonar advances wont do much for this expedition as 3d sonar models already exist for the titanic and are used ad-nauseum by the discovery channel, history, etc...for their reenactment porn

3. Premier Exhibitions Inc. of Atlanta is running out of steam, and wants a video commissioned to take advantage of the latest 3d craze thats sweeping the nation, as their exhibits are only 2 dimensional film and actu

Do you genuinely believe this? I'd be curious to compare the revenue of the top 25 movies of 2009 with the revenue of the National Park Service. Heck, maybe you're right, but somehow I think people would prefer to sit in front a picture.

That's all they do when the go to National Parks anyway, they take pictures. They stop up traffic on the highway so they can chase down a bear and get a photo to look at later. Or they pile in by the thousands to watch Old Faithful erupt for a few mintues. When I was in Yos

3D "video" is a legitimate artistic medium similar to and basically superset of 2D video, just as color video is a superset of black-and-white video, with its inherent tradeoffs. When we get past the 3D spectacles of unnecessary eye-pokery, there will be a rich medium for enhancing the experience of many kinds of films. Just as color films eventually surpassed black-and-white after it got over its own silly spectacle period (see: "The Wizard o